Technical Report 560 - Defense Technical Information Center · REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM I. REPORT NUMBER t2 GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S

Technical Report 560

DEVELOPMENT OF

THE PRECOMMISSIONING LEADERSHIP

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Robert W. Rogers, Leonard W. Lilley, Richard S. WellinsDevelopment Dimensions International

M. A. Fischl and William P. BurkeArmy Research Institute

LEADERSHIP AND MANi GEMENT TECHNICAL AREA

_DTIC

C-,i AUG 2 1983

L2 DU.S. Army

SResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

February 1982

Acproved for Public release; aistribution unlimited.

S8 08 O01 6541

=*

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel, INTechnical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contractfor the Department of the Army

Development Dimensions International

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longerneeded. Please do not return It to the U.S. Armf Research Institute forthe Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorizeddocuments.

-- • • = m~~w • r~= m -~n•=~ = =, ~n- qm nm m m

UNCLASSIFIEDSECUPITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wfen Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER t2 GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report 560 D-/ - '7 / 3o q

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Development of The Precommissioning Leadership

Assessment Program6. PERFORMING ORr. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(#)

Robert W. Rogers, Leonard W. Lilley, Richard S. MDA 903-79-C-0519Wellins, M. A. Fischl, William P. Burke

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERSDevelopment Dimensions International 2Q263731A792

Suite 615-N, 4550 Montgomery Avenue

Bethesda, MD 2081411. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

US Army Research Institute for the Behavi.oral & 1 February 1982Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria, VA 22333 74"14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESS(If different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

UNCLASSIFIED15a. DEI.LASSI FI CATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Ropoff)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the &bstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

IS. SI3PLEMENTARY NOTES

Is. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveres side It necessary •nd Identify by block number)

Assessment; Assessment center; Officer selection; Performance-basedassessment; Precommissioning program; Simulation; Training; Managementskills; Army ROTC; Interpersonal skills; Leadership skills

2d, ASTR'ACT (Ce a m revers &Ed Ht rncet-y mad idez.ify by bltck m, n"ber)

v{ One of the recommendations from the report A Review of Education and Trainingoz<for Officers (RETO) was to develop a performance-based assessment program to

gauge the leadership potential of applicants to Army precommissioning pro-grams. The program was developed in three phases. First, an analysis was

performed to identify the behavioral dimensions of the Second Lieutenant job.Second, simulations designed to elicit behaviors on these dimensions were "/prepared. Also developed in the second phase were the workbooks, training

D AD 1473 EIT'nO% OF I NOV 65 IS 09SOLETE,,( :DD i • • UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date Entered)i

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(ah, Data Entered)

Item 20. (continued)

manuals and texts necessary for assessor training and for admin 4.trationof assessmenc centers. Finally, field tests were conducted in ROTC andOfficer Candidate School to evaluate program contents and design.

The job analysis identified 12 dimensions of leadership. These dimensionswere oral communication, oral presentation, written communication,influencing others, initiative, sensitivity, planning and organizing,delegation, administrative control, problem analysis, judgment and decisive-ness. Based on the job analysis, Five simulations were developed: anin-basket exercise, conduct of an interview, a scheduling exercise, an oralpresentation, and a leaderless group discussion. Associated workbooks,materials anS films were also developed for officers responsible forconducting and administering the Leadership Assessment Program.

/

Accession ForNTIS GRA&IDTIC TABUnannounced 0Justificatio

Kistribution/ _

Avaiiab-itY 2odes

,Dist Special

ii UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THiS PAGan/hen Date Entered)

K -. nmmnn um mmmni

Technical Report 560

DEVELOPMENT OF

THE PRECOMMISSIONING LEADERSHIP

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Robert W. Rogers, Leonard W. Lilley, Richard S. WellinsDevelopment Dimensions International

M. A. Fischl and William P. BurkeArmy Research Institute

Submitted by:

T. Owen Jacobs, ChiefLEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL AREA

Approved by:Joyce L. Shields, DirectorMANPOWER AND PERSONNELRESEARCH LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

February 1982

Army Project Number Manpower and Personnel2Q263731 A792

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Ii iii

I

-I

AR, Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors ofR&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings readyfor implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last partof the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recom-rnendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Di - -;ition Form.

iv

FOREWORD

The five-volume document entitled "Review of Education and Training forOfficers" (RETO) was projuced in 1978 by an officer study group appointed bythe Army Chief of Stdff to examine and analyze the developmental trainingthat officers receive throughout their careers. Several recommendations fromthe review were related to precommissioning selection and training. Thisproduct i! part of an effort to develop an instrument fo," the Army'sprecommisioning programs.

The Leadership Assessment Program is the performance-based component of aselection/training system and consists of a series of job simulationsdesigned to assess leadership potential. It is part of a continuing effortby the Army Research Institute to construct accurate selection anddevelopment instruments for officers. Work was performed by personnel fromthe Leadership and Management Technical Area under Army Project 2Q263731A792,in response to special requirements of the U.S. Army Training and DoctrineCommand's Deputy Chief of Staff for ROTC.

EDGAR M. JOHNSONTechnical Director

iV

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRECOMMISSIONiNG LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

BRIEF

Requirement:

To develop a performance-based assessment program designed to gauge thepotential of future officers in decision-making, supervisory sKills,organizational leadershio, communication skills, and other dimensions ofleadership in the military.

Procedure:

The program was developed in three phases. First, an analysis was performedto identify the behavioral dimensions of the Second Lieutenant job. Second,simulations designed to elicit behaviors on these dimensions were prepared.Also developed in the second phase were the workbooks, training manuals andtexts necessary for assessor training and for administration of assessmentcenters. Finally, field tests were conducted in ROTC and Officer CandidateSchool to evaluate program contents and design.

Findings:

The job analysis identified twelve dimensions of leadership. Thesedimensions were oral communication, oral presentation, written communication,influencing others, initiative, sensitivity, planning and organizing,delegalion, administrative control, problem anplysis, judgment anddecisiveness. Based on the job analysis, five simulations were developed:an in-basket exercise, conduct of an interview, a scheduling exercise, anoral presentation, and a leaderless group discussion. Associated workbooks,materials and films were also developed for officers responsible forconducting and administering the Leadership Assessment Program.

Utilization of Findings:

The Leadership Assessment Program has been implemented on a trial basis innine ROTC detachments for school year 1980-81 and is planned for broaderimplementaton in ROTC and OCS beginn~ng in Autumn 1982.

vii

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRECOMMISSIONING LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ..................... ............................ . i.. 1

THE ASSESSMENT CENTER METHOD ................... ................... 3

JOB ANALYSIS ......................... ............................ . 11

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT .................... ......................... .. 19

FINAL LEADERSHIP ASSESSNENI PROGRAM ............ ................. .. 23

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................. ....................... .. 26

REFERENCES ....................... ............................. .. 27

APPENDIXES

Appendix A. Incumbent Questionnaire ......... ................... 29

B. Critical Inc.ient Questionnaire ..... ............ .. 41

C. Dimension Selection Questionnaire .... ........... .. 55

D. Assessee Final Report Format ........ ............. .. 63

E. Assessee Reactions, First Field Test ..... ......... .. 65

F. Assessor Reactions, First Field Test ...... ........ .. 67

G. OCS Assessee Reactions, Second Field Test .......... .. 69

H. OCS Assessor Reactions, Second Field Test .......... .. 71

TAY3LES

Table 1. Assessment Center Comparisons ........ ..... ............ 8

2. Content Validity Ratio for Thirteen Dimensions ......... .. 17

3. Definitions of Dimensions to be Assessed ... ......... .. 18

4. Dimensions b, Exercise ............. .................. .. 19

ix

PWIhMN PAGZ BLANK-NOT FIL.MW

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRECOMMISSION-G LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

The Precommissioning Leadership Assessment Program (LAP) is aperformance-based assessment program designed to gauge the potential offuture officers in decision-making, supervisory skills, organizationalskills, communication skills, and other dimensions of leadership in themilitary.

Background

In August 1977, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army established a Study Groupfor the Review of Education and Training for Officers. The group was taskedwith performing a comprehensive review of officer training and educationbased on Army missions and individual career needs. After approximately oneyear's analysis, the five-volume report, entitled A Review of Education andTraining for Officers (RETO), was published. The report contained severalrecommendatiens, later approved by the Chief of Staff, for change in theprecommissioning screening of officer program applicants. One of the changeswas to utilize a performance-based assessment program to help gauge theleadership potential of future officers. This report describes thedevelopment of that program.

History of Performance-Based AssessmentPerformance-based assessment consists of an integrated system of simulationsor exercises designed to generate behavior similar to that required for

success on a target job or job level. In essence, it is a miniature jobsample in which the assessee is observed by multiple assessors.

The use of behavioral simulations to test skills and abilities is not a newconcept. The Germans used a series of simulations to select high-levelofficers during World War I. The British later adopted the procecure and arestill using assessment methodology to select candidates into their OfficerCorps.

During World War II, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in the UnitedStates applied the assessment methodology in an attempt to identify whichapplicants would make the best spies or intelligence agents. Candidates wereput through a rigorous testing procedure which included both physical andmental exercises to determine their capabilities (MacKinnon, 1974).

The first recorded use of the assessment process in industry occurred in thelate 1950s at AT&T. There, a longitudinal study was conducted on 274managers during their first eight years of employmeit. The assessmentprocess was used to evaluate skill levels during their first days at AT&T andthen again at the eight year point in their careers. The results showed thatthe assessment evaluations were accurate predictors of success within theAT&T system (Bray, Campbell and Grant, 1974).

- 1-

However, the growth and widespread use of the assessment concept in industryand government did not start until the early 1970s. The Civil Rights Act of1964 and the establishment of government agencies to regulate and monitoremployment practices of companies in the late 1960s and early 1970s causedmany organizations to re-examine their employment practices from the point ofview of court-defined fairness. One outcome of this was increased relianceon assessment procedures using job simulations, which had generally beenupheld in court precedents, to assist in determining which individuals werebest qualified for the positions. Large companies such as Sears Roebuck andCompany, IBM, General Electric, Standard Oil (SOHIO), General Mrtors, J.C.Penney, and AT&T were the first groups to use the assessment process as partof their selection or promotion systems. As a result of their descriptionsof success with the procedure, more and more companies within Americanindustry began to utilize the process. Today, over 2,000 companies andgovernment organizations are using the assessment process to assist decision-makers in making better selection or promotion decisions and to aid inidentifying individual management development needs (Byham, 1980).

The U.S. military also has contemporary experience in the use of assessmentcenters. In the early 1960's, a large assessment center was established atFort McClellan, Alabama, to afford criterion data for validating officerselection test batteries. In 1973, the Army established a pilot program atFort Benning to determine the feasibility of the assessment center approachfor officer selection and development. The U.S. Air Force uses similarassessment pronedures for leadership development at its Squadron OfficerSchool, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Similarly, the assessment method isused as an organizational effectiveness tool for incoming company commandersat Fort Carson, Colorado. In addition, Brigadier General designates areoffered the opportunity to go through a special assessment process beforethey assume their high-level command and staff positions. Finally, otherArmy agencies or schools exploring the use of assessment centers include theArmy War College, Command and General Staff College, Recruiting Command, andan Officer Advanced Course at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana.

Outline of Report

This report covers the activities associated with the development of theprecommissioning leadership assessment program and is divided into three mainsections. The traditional assessment center method is described in detail inthe first section and compared to the modified method which was develcped forthe Leadership Assessment Program. The specifics of the job analysis, whichwas conducted to determine the appropriate behavioral dimensions to bemeasured in the assessment program, are covered in the second section. Thechronology and specifics of the development of the Leadership AssessmentProgram are covered in the third section.

THE ASSESSMENT CENTER METHOD

In this section, the components of a standard assessment center are describedin detail. The specifications for the Precommissioning Leadership AssessmentProgram (LAP) are also described and their deviations from standardassessment centers are indicated.

Standard Assessment Center Method

Writing on the assessment center method, Moses has stated that "an assessmentcenter can be thought of as both a place and a process. It is a place whereindividuals participate in a variety of measurement techniques. It is also aprccess designed to provide standardized and objective conditions ofevt.luation" (1977, p.4). Moses continues:

The strength of the assessment center method is two-fold.First, it uses techniques designed to simulate criticalbehaviors related to success on the job. It thenfacilitates the integration of this information by poolingdata from a variety of assessment sources.

A typical assessment center usually brings a group of sixto 12 individuals together. These individuals participatein a variety of exercises and techniques designed tomeasure predetermined qualities or abilities. Thesetechniques include group exercises, business games,in-basket exercises, pencil-and-paper tests, andinterviews. They may also include specifically designedrole-playing problems, phone calls, or simulatedinterviews.

Reports are prepared describing the assessment outcome.Depending on the intent of the center, these reports canccntain diagnostic information concerning a participant'sstrengths and weaknesses, or simply a statement predictingthe participant's potential for success in a moredemanding position.

Performance by participants in the assessment centerprocess is observed by a trained team of evaluators.These individuals usually are represe.,tatives of theorganization who are knowledgeable about the kinds ofbehavior found to be effective. These evaluators, orassessors, receive special training and participate asmembers of the assessment team.

Each assessor has several key functions to perform. He orshe must conduct the assessment exercises and observeparticipant performance during this part of the process.The assessor must also report on what behaviors wereobserved to other members of the evaluation teem and then

-3-

judge, along with other members of the assessment team,the effectiveness of the behaviurs noted. While thelength of training varies from center to center, allassessors receive special instructions concerning theseaspects of the process.

An assessment center can also be defined as asophisticated rating process aesigned to minimize as manyforms of potential rater bias as possible. Eachparticipant is given the same opportunity to demonstratehis or her abilities in standardized situations.

There are sufficient assessors available so that eachparticipant is observed by more than one judge. Theprocess requires that independent judgments of behaviorsand effectiveness be made. Multiple observers, multiplesources of information, and specifically defined objectivedimensions of performance all add to the objectivity ofthe process ...

Regardless of the intent of the assessment center itself,the following aspects are present in each assessmentcenter. These components consist first of a list ofqualities or dimensions -elated to the characteristicssought in the position or job level in question. A secondcomponent consists of a series of techniques designed toprovide information useful in evaluating these qualitiesor dimensions. The final component is a staff toadminister the assessment process as well as to interpretthe behaviors observed.

The Dimensions to be AssessedObviously, the dimensions or qualities to be evaluated arecritical factors. These vary depending upon the purposeof the assessment center, the kinds of skills andabilities evaluated, and the level within the organizationof the participant and assessor. For example, in anassessment center designed to evaluate potential for,'urther advancement, the qualities or dimensions typicallyevaluated are heavily weighed toward management abilitiessuch as leadership, communication skills, anddecision-making administrative-type skills. On the otherhand, assessment centers designed for individualdevelopment strategies focus on areas that can be amenableto change and may include such aspects as personalcareer-planning strategies and increased self-awarenessbased on feedback associated with the assessment. In allcases, however, determining the kinds of qualities ordimensions to be evaluated is a critical factor inestablishing an assessment center. Generally, thesedimensions should be ones that are stable and do not

-4-

change rapidly over time, are observable using assessmentcenter techniques, can be definable and meaningfullyinterpreted, and make sense to the organization.

There are a variety of methods used for defining thedimensions to be assessed. A job analysis, designed todetermine critical behaviors in the position in question,is often needed. Dimensions found to be particularlysuccessful in other assessment center programs are alsooften drawn upon. Often there is a great deal ofsimilarity in management functions across organizations;consequently, we can expect to see some overlap indimensions assessed in different organizations.

For the most part, however, a typical center evaluatesfrom eight to 25 different dimensions. These may includesuch diverse skill areas as interpersonal, administrative,and communications effectiveness. Commonly useddimensions include leadership, persuasiveness, perception,flexibility, decisiveness, organizing and planning skills,problem-solving skills, and oral and writtencommunications skills.

Assessment TechniquesThe techniques used to measure these qualities also vary.As a general rule, no single technique is designed toprovide information on all of the dimensions typicallyevaluated in an assessment center. Considerable researchhas indicated that certain techniques provide informationhighly relevant to specific dimensions. For example,measuring an individual's intellectual abilities is bestdone using standardized mental tests. Trying to evaluatethis dimension, based on prior scholastic accomplishmentsor current writing skills, is generally much lessaccurate. Similarly, the most effective way of evaluatinginterpersonal kinds of behaviors requires a live,interpersonal interaction with others. Asking theindividual to respond, for example, to the kinds ofleadership approaches he or she may prefer in a givensetting is not as realistic as simulating an actualsituation which requires leadership capabilities.Consequently, various group exercises and games have beendeveloped to measure these kinds of abilities.Administrative skills, such as organizing, planning, anddecision-making, are best evaluated through a specialindividual exercise known as an in-basket. ...

The Assessment StaffThe final component of an assessment center is the staffitself. In many respects, this is one of the mostcritical components of the process. Since assessment is ajudgmental process, the quality of the judge is of great

-5-II

4

importance. The assessor must be able to assimilate agreat deal of information rapidly, must be relatively freeof personal biases, and must be perceived by his or herorganization as an effective individual. This last factoris of great importance in terms of how the results of theprogram are used. If the organization perceives theassessment staff as marginal, then it will tend to ignorethe results of the process. On the other hand, ifassessors represent the best that the organization has tooffer, the results of the process take on greatersignficance.

Many centers use special selection techniques forassessors. It is also not uncommon to see assessors drawnfrom prior successful assessment participants.

As noted earlier, there are wide variations in terms ofthe staffing approaches used by different organizations.The background of the assessor, training of the assessor,and judgmental strategies employed by the assessor are[important considerations].

Perhaps an example at this point would be appropriate toshow the intent of the assessment center process.Suppose, for a moment, that you were asked to identify anindividual whose major responsibility will be speaking toaudiences on a variety of topics. Obviously, one of thedimensions to be observed for this pnsition is the extentto which the individual can make an effective oralpresentation. This is but one dimension of many which maybe relevant but, for our example, it is the one considered.

There are several ways of determining whether or not acandidate is suitable for this assignment. One commonmethod is simply to ask the applicant for a self-report.For example, you might determine whether the individualdoes have prior speaking experience. The applicant mightbe asked whether he or she is comfortable in addressinglarge groups, whether he or she has had prior publicspeaking training, and so forth. While this might berelevant and useful background information, it does nothelp in determining the skills of the candidate inquestion. As an alternative approach, you could obtainreference/appraisal-type data about the speaking skills ofthe applicant. For example, you could solicit the opinionof a manager who may have heard the individual make anoral presentation. This kind of data gathering is quitecommon for many management selection decisions.Obviously, it suffers from considerable bias based on theoriginal upportunities presented to the candidate as wellas the frame of reference of the evaluator.

-6-

A third method would combine some of the information fromthe first two approaches with observations made during theinterview of the individual Again, this is a common andeasily administered procedure. This method is useful inpredicting only those behaviors that are present both inan interview setting and in addressing a large group. Forexample, knowing that candidate is poised in aface-to-face interview setting does not guarantee that heor she will behave similarly in front of a large audience.

While all of the above approaches are widely used, none ofthese approaches really addresses the question at hand.Realistically, tie best way of evaluating whether anindividual can make an effective oral presentation issimply to put him or her in the situation understandardized conditions and observe how effectively theindividual makes the actual presentation. in thissetting, specific attention should be given to the methodand manner of presentation, the content of ideas, audienceattentiveness, and a host of other related evaluativebehaviors. This, in the long run, will be a much moreaccurate prediction of effectiveness than any of thepreceding methods.

In a similar manner, other kinds of skills are evaluatedin an assessment center. Exercises are designed tosimulate critical behaviors related to job success. Avariety of techniques are used, leading to a wealth ofdata that can then be used for evaluative purposes(pp. 4-8).l

An Analysis of Army Assessment Environment

The Leadership Assessment Program was envisioned as encompassing all thebasic components of the standard assessment center method while operating inthe Army officer training environment. The most serious constraint was itslocation on 288 different college and university campuses. A review of thisenvironment showed wide variation from detachment to detachment concerninqtime available for cadet assessment and availability of cadre personnel forassessment duties. These factors received consideration in the design of theLAP.

The size of ROTC faculty dictated that the assessor/assessee ratio be one tothree instead of the usual one to two found in standard 3ssessment centers.Also, exercises were shortened somewhat to be administrable in a fifty-minuteclassroom schedule if necessary. Other adjustments, dictated primarily bythe time availability of cadre personnel, included: reducing the number ofexercises used in standard assessment centers from six to five and modifyingthe standard final report to two pages from the standard ten pages.

1 Reprinted, with permission, from Moses and Byham, 1977, Pergamon Press.

-7-

A comparison of characteristics of standard assessment centers and thePrecommissioning Leadership Assessment Program is shown in Table 1.

Table 1ASSESSMENT CENTER COMPARISONS

Standard LAPItem Assessment Center Assessment Center

Assessor Training 5 Day Classroom 2-1/2 Day Self Study2-1/2 Day Classroom

Length of Assessment 14 Hours 8 Hours

Number of Exercises 6 5

Number of Assessees per Group 6 6

Number of Assessors per Group 3 2

Final Report 10-14 Pages 2 Pages

Staff Training

A critical element in the design and development of the Leadership AssessmentProgram was the associated training program for those personnel designated totest and, late*r. implement the program. Absolutely essential to thesuccessful application and execution of the assessment process in anyorganizational setting--industrial or government--is the firm requirement forindividuals highly trained in assessor skills.

The organizational design for the adminstration of the LAP within the ROTCenvironment identified three categories of individuals with differenttraining requirements: assessors, program administrators, and mastertrainers.

Assessors - The training required to develop the skills necessary to serveeffectively as an assessor includes:

a Developing a thorough understanding of the behavioral simulations used inthis program.

* Recognizing specific examples of behaviors as compared to vague,judgmental observations.

I

* Developing the skill of recording observations rapidly and in specificterms of the behaviors observed.

* Understanding hjw to properly categorize behaviors under appropriatedimensions.

s Becoming familiar with the five point rating scale used in this programand understanding the standards against which participant performance ismeasured.

* Getting instruction ir how to prepare an assessor report on theassessee's performance in each of the exercises.

# Receiving information on the conduct of an assessor data integration

session.

* Planning for and conducting feedb;zk interviews.

A detailed LAP Assessor Training Guide was developed. This manual was madeavailable to assessor trainees prior to the commencement of classroomntraining. Approximately two and one-half days of self-study were requiredprior to the commencement of classroom training, which also lasted two andone-half days.

Program Administrators - Program Administrator training included:

e The history of assessment centers.* The validity base for the assessment method.e The procedures used in the assessment proqran.* How the dimensions were developed.* The dimensional rating scale.

In addition, the program administrators received training required to developtheir ability to:

• Plan for an assessment program implementation.e Train assessors.o Effectively utilize assessor training aids and materials to maximize

impact of assessor training.9 Evaluate assessor-trainee skills.e Conduct an assessor discussion.* Rate performance in exercises by dimension consistent with

pre-established standards.e Conduct feedback of assessment results to assessees.

Master Trainers - The LAP Master Trainers' responsibilities included twomajor functions: (a) the training of administrators for each detachmentwithin their regions, (b) the quality control and monitoring of detachmentprograms. In addition to receiving assessor and administrator training, theMaster Trainers received training in how to:

* Prepare and plan for administrator training.9 Develop an administrator training schedule.* Provide feedback to trainees.* Establish quality control and monitor programs within detachments.

-9-

- -

Training Materials - Five manuals, three videotapes, and a set oftransparencies were prepared and constitute the training materials necessaryfor LAP assessor, administrator, and master trainer training and for theadministration of the assessment program within the ROTC environment.

The manuals are:

e Program Administrator Manual* Master Trainer Manuale Assessor Training Guide* Assessor Workbook* In-Basket Manual

The videotapes are:

* Maintenance Review Board (Group Discussion)e Oral Presentation and Counseling Simulation* Giving Assessment Feedback

In implementing the staff training program, the following steps wereaccomplished:

1. Seven ROTC instructors were trained in assessor skills and used asassessors in the first field test of the program.

2. Five Officer Candidate School (OCS) instructors were trained in assessorskills and used as assessors in the second field test of the program.

3. Twenty-four ROTC instructors were trained in assessor skills and used asassessors in the third and major field test of the program.

4. For the final testing of the program in nine colleges/universitiesnationally, one individual from each institution received assessortraining and administrator training. This training was provided inAlexandria, Virginia, during the period June 9-18, 1980.

5. One member of each of the four ROTC regional staffs, plus an additionalmember of the second ROTC region staff, were designated Master Trainersand received the additional training necessary for this designation.

6. Administrator/Master Trainer training at all locations was conducted bythe LAP project staff.

-10-

JOB ANALYSIS

A job analysis was conducted to determine the behavioral dimensions of theSecond Lieutenant position.

Method

Review Existing Literature. The first step in the job analysis procedurewas to review a broad array of research and other Army publications to obtainbackground information on the scope and depth of Second Lieutenant jobresponsibilities and activities in today's Army. This research served as thebasis for the construction of an incumbent interview questionnaire (SeeAppendix A). This questionnaire was desiqned so that the interviewer couldask questions of Second Lieutenants like: "Describe your position in theorganization. What are your major job duties? Describe your typical day.What are the most difficult parts of a Second Lieutenant's job?"

Incumbent Interviews. The next step in the job analysis procedure was toconduct incumbent interviews. In October, 1979, a team composed of fouriiiterviewers traveled to Fort Lewis, Washington, and conducted incumbentinterviews with Lieutenants in the Ninth Infantry Division. Of thetwenty-eight Lieutenants, twelve were from combat arms, eleven from combatsupport, and five from combat services supporL.

The principal reason for interviewing incumbents was to learn how theincumbent spent his/her time; what the biggest problems were; and whatprocedures, knowledges and skills were required in the job. Some informationon the causes of success and failure in the job was also obtained, but thiswas of secondary importance due to the limited perspective that incumbentsbrought to that task.

Critical Incident Interviews. Following the interviews with Lieutenants,four groups of five Captains each, also from the Ninth Infantry Division,were interviewed. The Captains were all company commanders or had served ascompany commanders and represented all branches. The purpose of theseinterviews was to obtain another perspective--this one from individuals whohad all served in the target position as well as supervised individuals inthe target position. Meeting in groups of five, with one interviewer posingquestions, the Captains were asked to describe situations they had observedin which individuals had been particularly successful or unsuccessful in thetarget position. Using the critical incident questionnaire (Appendix B) as aguide, the interviewer asked such questions as: "Think of an incidentindicating outstanding performan , in a Second Lieutenant position. Describethe situation, the behavior, an( ;ie consequence."; "What do you see as thethree major functions or responsibilities of a Second Lieutenant?".

Analysis of Job Activity and Critical Incident Data. The next task in thejoh analysis sequence of activities was to convert these two sets of datainto a tentative list of behavioral dimensions. Activity data were distilledfrom the interview notes, and rough counts of frequency of mention wereobtained. The more frequent activities were then categorized into a list ofdimensions. Critical incident data were analyzed and another list of

-11-

dimensions was distilled from the incidents cited. Analysts employed thefollowing rules in developing the list of dimensions from critical incidents:

1. They looked for truly critical incidents; that is, examples of unusuallyeffective or unusually ineffective performance.

2. There had to be at least three critical incidents involving any onedimension before it could be included on the list.

3. They considered both the frequency and importance of the be,,avior cited.

Next, both lists of dimensions produced from analysis of the activity andcritical incident data were combined into one tentative list of dimensions.Full definitions of the dimensions were developed along with clarifyinginformation designed to assist those working with the dimensions to better.cnderstand why they were included on the list.

The tentative list ef dimensions, with supporting rationale and organized bycategory, was as indicated below:

Communication Skills

Oral Communication Skill: Effective expression in individual or groupsituations (includes gestures and nonverbal communication).

Lieutenants must communicate with their NCOs and other members of theirplatoons in giving orders, answering questions, and providing taskperformance feedback. They conduct meetings with their NCOs and participatein meetings run by the company commander and others. They keep the unitcommdnder up-to-date on platoon activities and other unit problems thatarise. They work with other officers and NCOs to meet the needs of theirunit. Effective communication during these interactions is crucial to ensurecomplete understanding.

The ficus of this dimension is on the clarity and form of the communication,not the content. Typical communication areas of concern are: clarity,volume, grammar, eye contact, rate, inflection/modulation, organization,enthusiasm, cenfidence, brevity and nonverbal communication such as gestures,facial expressions, etc.

Written Communication Skill: Expressing ideas clearly in writing using goodgrammatical form.

Lieutenants are frequently required to express themselves in writing in avariety of circumstances. They are required to submit reports on the statusof training in their platoons, prepare replies to inspection reports, submitpromotion recommendations, and write on other similar matte'rs. They alsoprepare, in writing, performance evaluations on the NCOs in their platoons,memos, and letters to unit commanders and, sometimes, to other seniorofficers. As a result, the ability to write clearly is an essential skillfor lieutenants.

-i2-

Oral Presentation Skill: Effective expression when presenting ideas or tasksto an individual or to a group when given time for preparation (includesgestures and nonverbal communication).

The important distinction between oral communication skill and oralpresentation skill is the phrase "given time for preparation." For thelieutenant, oral presentation situations include presentations to seriorofficers and/or subordinates on a variety of subjects such as the status ofunit effectiveness. These presentations are usually one-on-one or to smallgroups. The presentations can be made standing up with visual aids or at thedesk. Also, they can be made either under garrison or field circumstances.Oral presentation also includes the ability to field questions following apresentation.

Other important elements of oral presentation skill are: pitching thepresentation at the appropriate level for the audience; reactingappropriately to audience concerns; and gaining commitment and acceptance,when appropriate. The lieutenant must project a knowledgeable, professionalimage. Similar areas of concern as listed under oral communication skill arealso considered. In addition, the opening and closing of the presentation aswell as the rapport established are crucial, and use of visual aids areevaluated.

Personal/Motivational Skills

Initiative: Active attempts to influence events to achieve goals;self-starting rather than passive acceptance. Taking action to achieve goalsbeyond those called for; originating action.

Lieutenants frequently work without close supervision from a superiorofficer, particularly in field situations. Inherent in this situation is thejob of leading a military unit and the need to originate and sometimes takeactions that go beyond specific job responsibilities. Lieutenants need to beinitiators and originators instead of just reacting to events. A lieutenantshould take action as soon as a problem begins developing and not wait untilsomeone else sugcasts that the situation needs attention. This is

particularly true in the field where major initiatives are frequently neededto accomplish unit obiectives. The innovative lieutenant goes beyondword-to-word content of orders and takes action to improve unit efficiency.

Interpersonal Skills

Sensitivity: Actions that indicate a consider&tion for the feelings and. eds of oti~ers.

The lieutenant needs to take actions based on an accurate appraisal of thefeelings, competencies, and needs of others, particularly the NCOs andpersonnel of his/her unit. An accurate perception of how others see ,.im/heris also important. A lieutenant must take subordinates' feelings intoconsideration during one-on-one meetings especially when disciplining orexamining p~oblem peyformance. I's/she must be abi to smooth over relatiensamong subordinates as well as between subordinates and officers/NCOs from

-13-

othe- units. He/she must also freely acknowledge assistance fromsubordinates/superiors and other individuals and take actions which considersubordinates' feelings when resolving complaints.

Influence: Utilizing appropriate interperson.1 styles and methods in guidingTndividuals (subordinates, peers, superiors) or groups toward taskaccomplishment.

Lieutenant positions require individuals who must be able to lead otherstoward accomplishing unit goals. It is expected that these individuals mustbe able to adopt an interpersonal style commensurate with the situation. Thefocus is not only on the effect of the attempts to persuade people to change,but also on the means employed to achieve these changes. Despite lack ofexperience, the lieutenant must be able to motivate, guide, or inspire themembers of his/her unit toward accomplishing unit goýls. Likewise, ininteractions with peers and/or supericrs, the lieutenant needs to bepersuasive in getting his/her ideas adopted. He/she must set an example forall subordinates and must be able to coach, train and counsel subordinaLcs injob responsibilities and personal problems.

Administrative Skills

Planning and Organizing: Establishing a course of action for self and/orothers to accomplish a specific goal; planning proper assignments ofpersonnel and appropriate allocation of resources.

'ieutenants must plan and organize for themselves and others. They oftenhave to prepare task assignments for members of their units according toimportance and urgency. They must assign tasks to NCOs or other members oftheir units, as app,'opriate, and reschedule priorities and assignments due tounforeseen problems. They must take actions to meet suspense for reports orother needs of the organization. They must manage their own time to makeeffective use of available time and allocate rEsources necessary for theaccomplishment of assigned unit tasks.

Delegation: Utilizing subordinates effectively. Allocating decision-makingand other responsibilities to the appropriate subordinates.

Most lieutenant positions require individuals who can effectively allocatework to their subordinates. There are many facets to the delegationdimension. It includes what is delegated (type of task, authority, orinformation gathering); how it is delegated (clarity and specificity of thedelegation); and the target of the delegation (is it the most appropriateperson). All of these factors are important and must be considered inevalIating delegation effectiveness.

Administrative Control: Establishing procedures to monitor and/or regulateprocesses, taskcý or activities of subordinates, and job activities andresponsibilities. Taking action to monitor the results of delegatedassignments or projects.

-14-

Lieutenants must take action to establish controls over procedures or methodsfor accomplishing unit work tasks and activities. The most frequentmonitoring device employed by lieutenants is direct observation. However,provisions for feedback such as weekly reports or daily meetings with NCOsare also of use. Lieutenants must follow up on orders given to subordinates,and must monitor the progress, activities and achievements of their units tomake sure they are completed within the established time frame.

Decision-Making Skills

Problem Analysis: Identifying problems, securing relevant information,relating data from different sources, and determining possible causes ofproblems.

Lieutenants are faced with a myriad of problems at unit level which they musthave the skill to solve. They must be able to correctly identify existingsurface as well as underlying problems. Secondly, they must possess theskill and knowledge to recognize and collect pertinent information criticalto the problem. Third, they must possess the skill to accurately analyze theinformation relative to the problem. Finally, they must be able to correctlyidentify the cause of the problem and possible potential problems that couldoccur if the immediate problem is not solved. Examples of problemsencountered by the lieutenant are decreasing unit morale, failure to achieveunit training goals, and physical security.

Judgment: Developing alternative courses of action and making decisionswhich are based on logical assumptions and reflect factual information.

Lieutenants are required to make decisions o., a daily basis. Judgmentreflects the degree to which people use the information they are given orhave obtained, develop alternative courses of action, perceive theappropriateness of the actions open to them, understand the pros and cons ofeach alternative, and choose the most appropriate alternative. For example,lieutenants have to know when to accept recommendations from subordinates inboth garrision and field situations.

Decisiveness: Readiness to make decisions, render judgments, take action, orcommit oneself.

Lieutenants are required to make many decisions, some of which may involvethe welfare of their subordinates. They need to be able to determine howmany facts are needed iq a given situation before making a decision. Theofficer position requires individuals whc will make a decision, givensufficient information, and not needlessly seek or wait for furtherinformation.

Technical Skills

Technical Competence: Level of understanding and ability to use technical/professional information.

Lieutenants must acquire all current technical information and doctrine whichis relevant to the position and apply this knowledge to direct the unit inboth tactical and non-tactical situations. Examples of skills and knowledgesinclude map reading, equipment maintenance, and weapon use.

-15-

Dimension Questionnaire. The tentative list of the thirteen dimensionsdescribed above was next placed in questionnaire form ( see Appendix C). Thisquestionnaire was administered to 40 Captains at each of Forts Benning,Georgia; Sill, Oklahoma; and Knox, Kentucky. Respondents were requested torate each dimension as to its importance for success as a Second Lieutenant.The rating scale used was as follows:

4 - Absolutely essential. A persrn could not possibly performsatisfactorily in the job without a high degree of skill in this area.

3 - Essential. It would be very difficult for a person to performsatisfactorily in the job without considerable skill in this area.

2 - Useful, but not essential. Skill in this area would sometimes enhancejob performance, but satisfactory performance could be expected withoutit.

1 - Unnecessary. Skill in this area would almost never have anything to dowith satisfactory job performance.

Final Analysis. Eighty-nine responses to the dimension questionnaire werereceived from the Captain sample. Analysts next computed the contentvalidity ratio for each dimension.

In a paper presented at Content 2Validity II, a conference held at BowlingGreen University, July 18, 1975 , C.H. Lawshe stated that:

When all panelists (questionnaire respondents) say that the testknowledge or skill is "essential" or when none say that it is"essential", we can have confidence that the knowledge or skill is or isnot truly essential, as the case might be. It is when the strength ofthe consensus moves away from unity and approaches fifty-fifty thatproblems arise. Two assumptions are made, each of which is consistentwith established psychophysical principles:

- Any item, performance on which is perceived to be "essential" by morethan half of the panelists, has some degree of content validity.

- The more panelists (beyond 50%) who perceive the item as "essential,"the greater the extent or degree of its content validity.

To implement the above thinking, Lawshe proposed the following formula fora statistic he called the Content Validity Ratio (CVR):

ne - N/2CVR =

N/2

2 Also published in Lawshe, 1975.

-16-

in which the ne is the number of panelists indicating "essential" and Nis the total number of panelists. While the CVR is a direct lineartransformation from the percentage saying "essential", its utilityderives from its characteristics:

- When fewer than half say "essential" the CVR is negative- When half say "essential" and half do not, the CVR is zero- When all say "essential", the CVR is computed to be 1.00 (it is

adjusted to .99 for ease of manipulation).- When the number saying "essential" is more than half, but less than

all, the CVR is somewhere between zero and .(9.

Results: Employing the procedure described by Lawshe, content validityratios for all thirteen dimensions are presented in Table 2. All of thesevalues are reliably greater than zero (p 0.05). The final outcomes of thisanalysis were (a) to delete the dimension of Technical Competence sinceapplicants who are admitted to a precommissioning program will have ampleopportunity to develop and be evaluated in technical skills during the courseof their training; (b) to shorten working descriptions of the remainingtwelve dimensions; and (c) to begin to prepare materials for assessingindividuals on these dimensions. The final set is presented in Table 3.

Table 2Content Validity Ratios for the Thirteen Dimensions, N=89

Dimension Content Validity Ratio

Initiative .91Technical Competence .89Judgment .87Decisiveness .82Oral Communication Skill .82Planning and Organizing .69Influence .66Delegation .64Administrative Control .64Problem Analysis .53Written Communication Skill .53Sensitivity .44Oral Presentation Skill .35

-17-

Table 3Leadership Assessment Program

Definitions of Dimensions to be Assessed

Dimension Definition

Oral Communication Skill: Effective expression in individual or groupsituations (includes gestures and nonverbal communication).

Written Communication Skill: Clear expression of ideas in writing and ingood grammatical form.

Oral Presentation Skill: Effective expression when presenting ideas ortasks to an individual or to a group when given time for preparation(includes gestures and nonverbal communication).

Influence: Utilization of appropriate interpersonal styles and methods inguiding individuals (subordinates, peers, superiors) or groups toward taskaccomplishment.

Initiative: Active attempts to influence events to achieve goals;self-starting rather than passive acceptance. Taking action to achievegoals beyond those called for; originating action.

Sensitivity: Actions that indicate a consideration for the feelings andneeds of others.

Planning and Organizing: Establishing a course of action for self and/orothers to accomplish a specific goal; planning proper assignments ofpersonnel and appropriate allocation of resources.

Delegation: Utilizing subordinates effectively. Allocating decision-making and other responsibilities to the appropriate subordinates.

Administrative Control: Establishing procedures to monitor and/or regulateprocesses, tasks, or activities of subordinates, and job activities andresponsibilities. Taking action to monitor the results of delegatedassignments or projects.

Problem Analysis: Identifying problems, securing relevant informationrelating data from different sources and identifying possible causes ofproblems.

Judgment: Developing alternative courses of action and making decisionswhich are based on logical assumptions and whicn ref ect factualinformation.

Decisiveness: Readiness to make decisions, render judgments, take action,or commit oneself.

-i8 -________________________

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Using the twelve dimensions identified in the job analysis as a foundation,the next step in development of the Precommissioning Leadership AssessmentProgram was to design and develop exercises. These exercises (simulations)would give assessees the opportunity to demonstrate skill levels in thetwelve dimensions required in the Second Lieutenant position. During thedevelopment of the exercises, training materials needed for the assessors,administrators, and master trainers were being prepared. Finally, extensive

field testing of exercises, texts, and training materials was completed before

exporting the LAP to the university environments.

Exercise and Training Material Development. The first step in this phasewas to select the types of behavioral exercises which would provide theapplicants with as many opportunities as possible to demonstrate skill levelsin each of the twelve dimensions. Two broad types of exercises wereselected: an In-Basket and a Scheduling Exercise for elicitingadministrative behaviors, and a Counseling Simulation and a Leaderless GroupDiscussion for eliciting interpersonal behaviors. In addition, an OralPresentation was included. These exercises were selected since they offermaximum opportunity for observing behaviors in dimensions to be evaluated inthe LAP. LAP dimensions by exercise are shown in Table 4.

Table 4LAP Dimensions by Exercise

Dimension Exercise

S_

(3 0 d -X - (0

UC 0 0 4-'

4J - C S_

S(0 0 4- ' S CCD

Oral Communication X XWritten Communication X

SOral PresentationInfluence X X

iInitiative X XSSensitivity X X XiPlanning and Organizing XSDelegaion X

Administrative Control

',Problem, Analysis ,,X XO CJudgment X XDecisiveness X X

S-_19-

Sestvt

Plnigan raizn

The five exercises place the participant in a realistic organizationalsituation and provide multiple opportunities for the participant todemonstrate behaviors in each of the targeted dimensions. The organizationalsetting varies from exercise to exercise but the assignment of theparticipant remains constant--that of a newly commissioned Second Lieutenantassigned to a troop unit.

First Field Test. The first field test of the Leadership Assessment Programwas conducted at Fort Benning, Georgia, during the period April 7-16, 1980.ROTC instructors and cadets from the second and third ROTC regionsparticipated in this field test.

The first phase of this field test, which was conducted in the facilities ofthe ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, was assessor training. The project staffconducted this phase of the field test, training two Army Research Institutepersonnel, two Training and Doctrine Command personnel and seven ROTCpersonnel as assessors. Two noncommissioned officers were part of the ROTCcomplement. Training commenced on April 7. The first two days of trainingwere devoted to trainees studying the Assessor Training Guide in theclassroom. This was a departure from the normal schedule of self-study priorto classroom training. However, it was determined that for the first test ofthis manual, supervised study was necessary to ensure all participants werethoroughly familiar with manual contents prior to classroom training.

Also, it had been determined that the videotapes required for LAP assessortraining would not be produced until after the second field test. Therefore,ROTC students from nearby Columbus College served as training subjects duringthis first field test. Assessor training was completed on April 11. OnApril 13, eighteen ROTC cadets participated in the first LAP assessmentcenter.

These cadets were enrolled in the Army ROTC programs as MSIIs or MSIIIs(Military Science II and III--ROTC designations for ROTC programs offered incollege sophomore and junior years). They were from the followinginstitutions:

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GeorgiaN3rth Georgia College, Dahlonega, GeorgiaFort Valley State College, Fort Valley, GeorgiaTuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, AlabamaAuburn University, Auburn, AlabamaGeorgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia

Students were divided into three groups of six cadets each. Each group wasobserved by one team of two assessors (student to assessor ratio 3:1). Twogroups had two assessor teams assigned, with one of the teams designated as ashadow team, observing the assessment center for training purposes only.

Two and one-half days were spent integrating the data collected on alleighteen ROTC students. Final reports were prepared on each cadet from thesedata. (See Appendix D for final report format.) Student evaluations of theLAP were prepared upon completion of exercises. Assessor evaluations of theLAP were prepared after data integration was completed and final reportsprepared. Responses from both groups were very positive concerning the valueof the program. Students indicated they felt personal benefit from

participating in the program. Assessors felt the program was very good insurfacing student strenqths and weaknesses. They also felt the assessortraining which they received would be very valuable in evaluating theperformance of cadet/officer candidates in the future. A tabulation ofassessee and assessor responses is found ir Appendices E and D.

In addition to the written evaluations, an in-depth course critique was heldon April 16, 1980. Each exercise was discussed in detail with particularattention placed on exercise face and content validity.

Program Modification: Based on the written evaluations plus verbal inputsfrom the course critique, the following program revisions were made:

1. The oral presentation, wKich was made by cadets in conjunction with thescheduling exercise, was deleted from this exercise. Students andassessors felt that reporting the results of the schedule was notrealistic and did not challenge the participant's oral presentationabilities to a sufficient degree. It was agreed that requiring theassessees to make an oral presentation on the results of the MaintenanceReview Board (leaderless group discussion-assigned role) would be morerealistic and would give the assessees more of an opportunity todemonstrate their skill level in this dimension.

2. Two items were eliminated from the Second Lieutenant's in-basket sinceassessors felt that they were not representative of items commonly foundin a Second Lieutenant's in-basket.

3. The options available to members of the Maintenance Review Board (groupdiscussion--assigned role) were re-evaluated and brought more in balancewith adjustments in the monetary amounts assigned to each option.

4. Several minor changes in the training manuals and assessor report forms

were made to reflect the desires of test personnel.

All changes to texts and exercises were made prior to the second field test.

Second Field Test. The second field test of the Leadership AssessmentProgram was conducted at Fort Benning, Georgia, during the period May 5-16,1980. Instructors and officer candidates from the 50th and 51st companies ofthe Officer Candidate School participated in this field test. A schedule ofassessor training, candidate assessment, data integration and critiquesimilar to that used in the first field test was followed. One exception wasthat candidates in this field test were scheduled to receive feedback ontheir respective strengths and weaknesses. ROTC students in the first fieldtest did not receive feedback at the test site. Those who desired feedbackreceived same by telephone from the ARI project director after the field test.

The first phase of this field test was conducted in facilities provided bythe Officer Candidate School and involved assessor training. Six OCSinstructors commenced assessor training on May 5, 1980 and five completedsame, one dropping out because of an illness. Revised texts were used andthe same procedures used in the first field test were followed. Officercandidates were used as training subjects in lieu of videotapes. Assessortraining was completed on May 9, 1980.

S~-21-

-i

On May 13, ten officer candidates participated in the second LAP assessmentcenter. These candidates had commenced training at OCS on May 12 and wererelieved from training duties on May 13 in order to participate in theLeadership Assessment Program assessment center. Students were divided intotwo groups of five officer candidates each. Each group was observed by oneteam of three assessors. The TRADOC project sponsor and the ARI projectdirector performed assessor duties on one team, replacing the OCS instructorwho dropped out of training because of illness. Other project staffpersonnel performed administrator duties with both groups of assessees.

Two days were spent in integrating the data and preparing final reports onthe ten officer candidates. Each officer candidate received feedback on May15 from a member of the assessor teams. Officer candidate evaluations wereprepared upon completion of exercises. Assessor evaluations were preparedafter data integration and final reports had been prepared. As in the firstfield test, responses from both groups regarding the value of the programwere quite qood. (See ApDendices G and H).

An overall critique was held on May 16, 1980. Five OCS instructor/assessorsprovided feedback on the exercises, texts and training materials. Theirwritten evaluations and verbal inputs served as a basis for furtherrefinement and polish of the exercises and training materials. The mostimportant changes to the exercises and training materials resulting from thesecond field test were:

1. The courses of action illustrating mandatory and additional dimensions inthe in-basket manual received detailed attention with several additionsand modifications adopted for certain in-basket items.

2. Certain options for members of the Maintenance Review Board were furtherrevised.

3. Some items in the schedjling exercise were deleted and others added.

4. All training manuals and text materials were edited to incorporate thechanges cited above.

Final Review. All changes to exercises and training materials resulting fromthe second field test and recommended by test personnel were reviewed by thefull staff prior to final printing, collating and shipping of the completeLAP materials package to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for operational testing of theLAP at the ROTC Basic Summer Camp.

-22-

FINAL LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

This chapter presents a description of all elements of the LAP, which arefive exercises, five manuals, three videotapes, and one set of transparencies.

Exercises:

In-Basket Exercise: The participant is asked to handle letters, notes,requests, etc. that have accumulated on a predecessor's desk. Theparticipant must make decisions, delegate responsibility, write letters andreports, assign work, plan, organize, and schedule activities on thematerial in the in-basket. There are twenty-one items in the exercise.

Situation: The participant will assume the role of a Second Lieutenantreporting to his/her first unit and being assigned as a platoon leader.He/she will be placed under a time constraint situation with nocommunication with anyone who might be of assistance. The participant mustcomplete action on all items in the time allowed (one and one-half hours).

Assigned-Role Leaderless Group Discussion Exercise: Six participants areplaced in a competitive situation a,id are required to allocate funds andmake other judgments on a variety of competing proposals. Participants areassigned a position or viewpoint to present to the other group members.Each participant has two tasks: 1) to convince the other members to accepthis/her request for funds; and 2) to aid the group in making the bestdecision.

Situation: The participant must attend a special meeting of the PostMaintenance Review Board and present his/her unit's request for year-endmaintenance funds. The Board's recommendations go to the Post Commanderfor final disposition. The discussion will last one hour and ten minutes.

The participant receives a list of three projects in his/her unit whichrequire maintenance funds. He/she must decide whether to request funds forone or more of these projects and then make a request of the MaintenanceReview Board, of which he/she is an acting member. Each of the other fivemembers of the Board presents a rcquest for funds. Since the Board onlyhas $175,000 in funds to allocate and the total requests exceed thisamount, the participant must convince the Board of the importance offunding his/her unit's project. At the same time, participants must keepin mind the best utilization of funds from an overall Post Commander'sviewpoint.

Scheduling Exercise: The participant is asked to develop a work schedulefor his/her unit. The schedule is to cover all requirements and be free ofconflict.

Situation: In this exercise, the participant is to prepare a trainingschedule for the platoon. It must accommodate the numerous training andoperational commitments placed upon the platoon.

-23-

A number of training requirements are levied on the unit, many conflictingwith already established commitments from other higher authorities. Arealistic schedule must be developed, free of conflict. The exercise willlast for fifty minutes.

Counseling Simulation Exercise: In this exercise, the participant mustinteract with a subordinate on a one-to-one basis by planning andconducting a counseling session.

Situation: In this exercise, the participant again assumes the role of aSecond Lieutenant who must meet with one of his squad leaders whoseperformance of duty has recently deteriorated. The squad leader formerlyhad been considered the best squad leader in the platoon. Background dataprovides clues as to the possible cause of the squad leader's problem.

The participant must determine the true cause of the problem and establishcourses of action to solve the problem and improve the situation. Fifteenminutes are allocated for the session. The participant is allowed twentyminutes to prepare for the session.

Oral Presentation: The participant is asked to prepare and deliver a tenminute presentation to his company commander.

Situation: In this exercise the participant is allowed twenty minutes toprepare an oral presentation covering the results of the Maintenance ReviewBoard (Assigned-Role Leaderless Group Discussion exercise). Thepresentation will be made to the simulated company commander of theparticipant.

Manuals:

Assessor Training Guide - This manual contains the background informationon assessment technology and required assessor skills used in conjunctionwith the two and one-half day classroom training for assessors.

Assessor Workbook - This manual contains all exercises, participant reportforms, and assessor report forms used in the Leadership Assessment Program.

In-Basket Manual - This manual is used by assessors to evaluate in-basketexercises. It contains each uý the twenty-one in-basket items along withmandatory and additional dimensions with examples for each category.

Program Administrator Manual - This manual contains course and trainingoutlines for administrator use in training assessors.

Master Trainer Manual - This manual is a guide to assist master trainers inthe preparation for and conduct of administrator training. It also setsforth LAP quality control procedures.

-24-

Videotapes:

Maintenance Review Board (Group Discussion) - This fifty-minute videotapeshows six ROTC students participating in the group discussion exercise asmembers of the Maintenance Review Board. Each presents a project(s) forfunding, and vigorous discussion of fund allocation ensues.

Oral Presentation and Counseling Simulation - One participant of theMaintenance Review Board is shown presenting the results of the MaintenanceReview Board to his company commander. The second part of this videotapeshows a participant conducting a counseling session with a subordordinate.This videotape is twenty minutes in length.

Giving Assessment Feedback - This forty-four minute videotape presents theessential elements of information necessary for an assessor to properlyprovide assessment feedback. Positive models are shown of an assessorgiving feedback to two assessees--one who is accepting the feedback and onewho is resisting the feedback.

Transparencies:

Tl Definition of Performance-Based AssessmentT2 Contribution of AssessmentT3 Definition of DimensionT4 Flow Chart of Assessment ProcessT5 Present and Future Job ContrastsT6 Assessor SkillsT7A-T71 Model Assessor Report Form

-25-

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report describes the development of a performance-based assessmentprogram designed to gauge the leadership potential of future Army officers.As explained, a three-phase process was used in developing the program.First, an extensive job analysis was performed to document and identify thosebehavioral dimensions necessary for effective performance at the SecondLieutenant level. A list of twelve dimensions, consistent with previous Armyleadership research, were identified. Based on the analysis, a series ofsimulations designed to elicit leadership behaviors relative to eachdimension were prepared. Supporting workbooks, films and training manualswere also developed. Finally, field tests were conducted to evaluate theapplicability of the program in the Army environment.

Questionnaire data revealed the success of the program in terms of relevancyto the military environment and potential benefits. For example, officersand officer candidates alike rated the program as highly valuable,interesting and realistic. Officers trained as assessors indicated that theprogram would be useful in surfacing individual strengths and weaknes:es,selecting candidates into precommissioning programs, and serving asleadership training.

Pending validation, the Leadership Assessment Program gives indications ofproviding the Army with a useful selection or development tool consistentwith RETO recommendations. Validation is underway and will be reported inthe future.

-26-

REFERENCES

Bray, D. W., Cambell, R. L. and Grant, D. L. Formative years in business.New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974.

Byham, W. C. The assessment center as an aid in management development: anupdate. Training and Development Journal, 1980, 35.

Department of the Army. A Review of Education and Training for Officers(RETO). Washington, D.C., 1978.

Lawshe, C. H. A quantitative approach to content validity. PersonnelPsychology, 1975, 28, 563-575.

Mackinnon, D. W. How assessment centers got started in the United States.Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International, 1974.

Moses, J. L. The assessment center method. In J. L. Moses and W. C. Byham(Eds.), Applying the assessment center method. New York: Pergamon Press,1977.

-27-

APPENDIX A. INCUMBENT QUESTIONNAIRE

JOB RELATEDNESS ANALYSIS

INCUMBENT INTERVIEW GUIDE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

SECOND LIEUTENANT POSITIONS

Location:

Interview Date:

Incumbent:

Interviewer:

Protected Group Status:

OPEN THE INTERVIEW BY SAYING:

Hello, I'mName Department

I' m glad you could spare the time to talk with me. The purpose of ourmeeting is to provide the United States Army with good, currentinformation about the job of a Second Lieutenant. We will use theinformation to help refine our selection and development procedures forLieutenant positions. The best way to get this information is to speakwith Second Lieutenants, and you have been selected as one of those fromwhom we will get information.

I'm going to be asking some questions and I'll take notes on this form sothat I don't lose any of the important points. Your answers will becombined with the answers of all of the other Lieutenants we interview,so the answers you give will not be identified as yours in any report wemake. You may speak in complete confidence. You may certainly seeanything I put down on this form.

Do you have any questions? Let's begin.

1. What is your MOS?

2. What was the source of your commission?

3. How long have you been commissioned?

4. What is your present assignment?

5. How long have you been in your present assignment?

-29- -

PKCM PAG BLM-ENOT FIUZhD

Incumbent interview Guide - Page 2

6. Describe your position in the organization -- where you arein the organization structure (e.g., reportingrelationship). What is the size and composition of yourunit? Hrw many people report to you directly, indirectly?

Let's drawan organiza-tion chart.You are here.To whom doyou report?

How manyothers reportto him/her?

How manypeople reportto you?

Do they allhave the samejob title?

7. What are your major job duties?

What are yourpeople tasksand responsi-bilities?

What are thesituationsand decisionson which youimpact?

Are theseduties dailyweekly, monthly,annually?

-30-

Incumbent Interview Guide - Page 3

8. Describe your "typical day."

(If notypical day,"How do youspend yourtime?")

What activitiestake up themost time?

-31-


How much canyou controlhow yourtime is used?

-32-

Incumbent' Interview GAde - Pdge 5

9. What were your biggest probl.rms or challengos when youInitially came irto the >osition? (Details)

Wny?

How did youdea, withthem?

Have problermis/challengeschanged?

10. What are the most diffi.-ult parts of a Second Lieutenant'sjob?

Why are theydifficult?

Examples?

11. What are the types and nature of the things you delegate?

What isdelegated?

How?

-33-

Incumbe 4,, interview Guide - Page 6

lo whom?

How do youfollow up ondelegateditems?

12. How do you keep knowledgeable about the activities of yoursubordinates?

What controlsystems canyou use?

Examples?

13. What is the nature of planning required of you?

Do you planpeoole's time?

Theiractivities?

Resources?

-34-


14. What kinds of situations provide the most stress for you?

Why is that?

How oftendoes thathappen?

15. What are the most difficult decisions you must make?

Examples?

Others?

Anything else?

16. What kind of interactions do you have with your superiors?

-35-


17. What kind of interactions do you have with yoursubordinates?

18. What kinds of information do you have to analyze?

How difficult?

Written/oral?

Frequency?

Importance?

Help?

-36-


19. Do you make stand-up presentations?

Formal/i nfor-mal?

1:1 or group?

How many?

Can youprepare?

Visual aids?

20. How many reports, memos, and announcements which you haveto act on do you receive in a typical day or typical week?

What typesare they?

How importantare they?

-37-


21. If someone would come into your job and do exceptionallywell, what types of things would he/she do better than theaverage individual?

(Clarify)

(Pin down)

22. What type of technical skills are critical in doing yourjob?

-38-


23. Are there any special type of skills you might be calledupon to exhibit in a field/combat situation?

24. Is there anything else about your job which I should knowto really inderstand it?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

THE INFORMATION YOU GAVE ME WILL BE COMBINED WITH INFORMATIONPROVICED BY OTHER SECOND LIEUTENANTS BEING INTERVIEWED. FROMTHIS INFORMATION, A LIST WILL BE PREPARED OF KEY THINGS THATSECOND LIEUTENANTS DO. THIS LIST WILL BE INCORPORATED INTOFUTURE SELECTION AND TRAINING OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SECONDLIEUTENANT POSITIONS.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

-29

APPENDIX B. CRITICAL INCIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE


JOB RELATEDNESS ANALYSIS

CRITICAL INCIDENT MEETING LEADER'S GUIDE

Date of Meeting: Chairperson:

Time Began:

Time Ended:

Place:

Participants

Name Title

SL PAGE BLAW-10T FIUJ

-41- ... . .

Critical Incident MeetingLeader's Guide - Page 2

OPENING COMMENTS

Hello, I'mNAME DEPARTMENT

I'm glad you could spare the time to talk with me. The purpose of ourmeeting is to provide the United States Army with good, currentinformation about the job of a Second Lieutenant. We will use theinformation to help refine the selection and training procedures forindividuals coming into that position. All aspects of our new programwill be built around the job data we get from these interviews -- so youcan see that your participation is very important.

This is a somewhat different kind of interview.

We will be looking primarily for actual examples of behavior on thejob -- what specialists call "critical incidents." Here is a handoutthat explains what we are looking for. (Pass out handout -- givetime to read.)

When giving an incident you may use the person's name or not -- itdoesn't make any difference. No names of individuals will appear inthe final report.

I would appreciate it if everyone would participate, as all of youknow the job and its demands.

Feel free to build on the ideas of others. Frequently one previousexperience will remind you of another incident.

We won't be evaluating ideas -- we just want a lot of clear examplesof how Second Lieutenants do their jobs.

I'll take notes on this form so that I don't lose any of theimportant points. Your answers will be combined with the answers ofall of the other people whom we interview, so the answers you givewill not be identified as yours in any report we make. You may speakin complete confidence.

Do you have any questiotis?

Ok -- Can you ...

-42-


1. Think of an incident indicating outstanding (extremelyeffective) performance in a Second Lieutenant's position.Describe the situation, the behavior, and the consequence.

(If noresponse):It may helpto think of aperson who isoutstanding,then think ofincidentsyou've seen.

Additionalexamples

Furtherexamples

-43-


The persondoesn't haveto be consis-tently good.Have you seensituationswhere an un-usually poorperformer didsomethingwell?

What wasunusualabout whathe/she did?

Can you thinkof anotherexample?

(Call on quietones)

-44-


2. Think of an incident that indicated less than effective(poor) performance as a Second Lieutenant. Describespecifically the siutation, the behavior, and theconsequence.

Examples

Additionalex3mples

FurtherExamples

-45-


You've pos-sibly seensituationswhere a topperformer didsomethingwhich wasn'teffective.

Can youdescribe that?

More examples?

Others?

-46-


There must bemore.

(Call on othersto see if ex-amples unique)

"_, have youever had asituat'ionlike that?"

Is this atvyicalproblem?

Can youdescribeanotherexample?

-47-

Critical Incident MeetingLeadc,"'s Guide - Page 8

3. What technical knowledge or skills are necessary forsuccess in this position? Examples of incidentsillustrating where technical knowledge or skills have beenimportant?

Incidents?

More Incidents?

-48-


4. What do you see as the three major functions orresponsibilities of a Second Lieutenant?

(Go around theroom)

(After thefirst three orfour, "Do youagree?)

(Get discus-sion going.)

Can you thinkof examples ofpositive per-formance foreach of those?

Examples ofpoor perfor-mance for each?

Other examples?

-49-


5. What are the common problems you, as a supervisor of SecondLieutenants have with officers at this level when they arenewly commissioned?

Can you giveexamples thatillustrateeach of those?

More examples?

Other cases?

"__ , do youhave the sameproblems?"

-50-


6. What criteria do you use to evaluate Second Lieutenants whoreport to you?

Incidents

MoreIncidents

-51-

Critical Incident MeetingLeaders Guide -Page 12

CLOSING COMMENTS

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. YOUR FRANKNESS AND OPENNESS PROVIDED ME WITHVALUABLE INFORMATION.

THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS IS THAT I AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THEANALYST TEAM REVIEW THE INFORMATION GATHERED TODAY AND IN THE OTHERMEETINGS AND INTERVIEWS AND DISTILL IT INTO UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS(CRITERIA, SKILLS, ABILITIES, CHARACTERISTICS).

WE WILL THEN DISTRIBUTE A QUESTIONNARIE CONTAINING A PRELIMINARY LIST OFDIMENSIONS. OTHER CAPTAINS AND MAJORS WILL THEN EVALUATE THOSEDIMENSIONS AS TO THEIR IMPORTANCE SO WE CAN BE SURE THAT OUR SELECTIONSYSTEM WILL FOCUS ON THE KEY REQUIREMENTS.

-52-

HANDOUT GIVEN TO PARTICIPANT INCRITICAL INCIDENT DISCUSSION

Three parts of a "critical incident"

A critical incident has three parts:

1. The situation, circumstances, or setting of the "story."

2. The behavior, or activity performed.

3. The consequence, or result of the behavior.

"A Start" I have a Second Lieutenant in my company that really does agood job of anticipating problems.

"Better" I have a Second Lieutenant in my company that really does agood job of conducting marksmanship training on the firingline.

"Ideal" I have a Second Lieutenant who is first into the companyeach morning. He checks with his NCOs to ensure the righttroops are scheduled for training, details or extra duty.Then, he proceeds to the training area with his troops andmakes sure everything they need for that particulartraining session is at hand. He then checks with me to seeif there are any last minute changes. When the trainingperiod starts, his troops are ready and get right to workwithout wasting any time.

-53-

APPENDIX C. DIMENSION SELECTION QUESTIONNAIRE


SECOND LIEUTENANT

DIMENSION SELECTIGN QUESTIONNAIRE

The following pages list 13 behavioral dimensions which have tentativelybeen identified as related to successful job performance of secondlieutenants in the United States Army.

In order to design the selection system planned for second lieutenantcandidates in such a way as to maximize both the validity and utility ofthe program, we need your assistancc in evaluating the importance ofthese dimensions. Please follow the steps outlined below.

RATING OF IMPORTANCE

I. Read all of these instructions before making evaluations.

II. Read all dimensions, definitions, and descriptions carefully. Donot make any evaluations until this is done.

III. Rate the dimensions according to your opinion as to theirimportance for success as a second lieutenant by placing one of thefollowing numbers in the column to the right of the dimension andits definition.

4 - Absolutely essential. A person could not possibly performsatisfactorily in the job without a high degree of skill inthis area.

3 - Essential. It would be very difficult for a person to performsatisfactorily in the job without considerable skill in thisarea.

2 - Useful. but not essential. Skill in this area would sometimesenhance job performance, but satisfactory performance could beexpected without it.

1 - Unnecessary. Skill in this area would almost never haveanything to do with satisfactory job performance.

IV. Rate each dimension independently. Make your ratings on yourunderstanding of JOB REQUIREMENTS ONLY. In certain individuals,strengths in some dimensions can compensate for weakness in otherdimensions. The focus of this study must be on the requirements ofthe job -- not on individuals who are performing or who haveperformed in them.

V. Try to ignore any overlap which might exist between dimensions.Think of each dimension independently. When rating a dimension,force yourself to forget the other 12 dimensions.

VI. Tear off this page so that you have ready access to the ratingscale (Section III above) as you rate the dimensions.

VII. Begin rating now. -55-i • pyMZE pAGE BEai" -NOT 'L

Second LieutenantDimension Selection Questionnaire - Page 2

COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Importance

Cral Communication Skill: Effective expression inindividual or group situations (includes gestures andnonverbal communication).

(Second lieutenants must communicate with their NCOsand other members of their platoons in givingdirections, answering questions and providing taskperformance feedback. They conduct meetings with theirNCOs and participate in meetings run by the unitcommander and others. They keep the unit commanderup-to-date on platoon activities and other unitproblems that arise. They work with other officers andNCOs to meet the needs of their unit. The skill ofeffectively communicating during these interactions iscrucial to ensure complete understanding.)

(The focus of this dimension is on the clarity and formof the communication, not the content. Typicalcommunication areas of concern are as follows:clarity, tone, volume, snytax, grammar, eye contact,rate, inflection/modulation, emotion, organization,persuasiveness, enthusiasm, confidence, brevity andnonverbal communication such as gestures, facialexpressions, etc.)

Written Communication Skill: Clear expression ofideas in writing and in good grammatical form.

(Second lieutenants are frequently required to expressthemselves in writing in a variety of circumstances.They are required tJ submit reports on the status oftraining in their platoons, prepare replies toinspection reports, submit promotion recommendationsand write on other similar matters. They also preparein writing: performance evaluations on the NCOs intheir piatoons, memos, letters to unit commanders ald,sometimes, to other senior officers. As a result, theability to convey ideas clearly in writing is anecessary skill for second lieutenants.)

-56-


Importance

Oral Presentation Skill: Effective expression whenpresenting ideas or tasks to an individual or to agroup when given time for preparation (includesgestures and nonverbal communication).

(The important distinction between oral communicationskill and oral presentation skill is the phrase "giventime for preparation." For the second lieutenant, oralpresentation situations include making presentations tosenior officers and/or presentations to subordinates ona variety of subjects, usually on the status of uniteffectiveness. These presentations are usuallyone-on-one or to small groups. The presentations canbe made standing up with visual aids or at the desk.Also, they can be made either under garrison or fieldcircumstances. Oral presentation also includes theability to field questions following a presertation.)

(Other important elements of oral presentation skillare: pitching the presentation at the appropriatelevel for the audience; reacting appropriately toaudience reactions and concerns; gaining commitmen+ andacceptance, when appropriate. The second lieutenantmust project a knowledgeable, professional image.Similar areas of concern as listed under oralcommunication skill are considered. In addition, theopening and closing of the presentation as well as therapport established are crucial, and use of visual aidsare evaluated.)

-57-


PERSONAL/MOTIVATIONAL SKILLS

Importance

Initiative: Active attempts to influence events toachieve goals; self-starting rather than passiveacceptance. Taking action to achieve goals beyondthose called for; originating action.

(Second lieutenants frequently wo.-k without closesupervision from a superior officer, particularly infield situations. Inherent in this situation is thejob of leading a military unit and the need tooriginate and sometimes take actions that go beyondspecific job responsibilities. Second lieutenants needto be initiators and originators instead of justreacting to events. A second lieutenant should takeaction as soon as a problem begins developing and notwait until someone else suggests that the situationneeds attention. This is particularly true in thcfield where major initiations are frequently needLJ inorder to accomplish unit objectives. The innov&.ivelieutenant goes beyond word-to-word content ofdirections and takes action to improve unit efficiency.)

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS

Sensitivity: Actions that indicate a consideration forthe feelings and needs of others.

(The second lieutenant needs to possess the skill totake actions based on an accurate appraisal of thefeelings, competencies, and needs of others,particularly the NCOs and personnel of his/her unit.An accurate perception of how others see him/her isalso important. A second V1'utenant must takesubordinates' feelings into consideration duringone-on-one meetings especially when disciplining orexamining problem performance. He/she must be able tosmooth over relations among subordinates as well asbetween subordinates and officers/NCOs from otherunits. He/she must also freely acknowledge specialhelp from subordinates/superiors and other individualsand take actions which consider suDordinates' feelingswnen resolving complaints.)

(This dimension is not to be confused with Sympathy,which is how an individu., feels about a person orsituation. It is nearer the definition of Empathy, butinvolves taking action on the insights, not just havinginsights.)

-58-


Importance

Interpersonal Leadership: Utilization of appropriateinterpersonal styles and methods in guiding individuals(subordinates, neers, superiors) or groups toward taskaccomplishment.

(Most second lieuterant positions require individualswho can lead others toward accomplishing unit goals.Generally, it is expected that these individuals mustbe able te adopt a leadership style cammensurate withthe situation. The focus is not only on the effect ofthe attempts to get people to change, but also on themeans employed to achieve these changes. Despite lackof experience, the second lieutenant must be able tomotivate, guide, or inspire the members of his/her unittoward accomplishing assigned objectives. Likewise, ininteractions with peers and/or superiors, the secondlieutenant needs to be persuasive in getting his/herideas adopted. He/she must set an example for allsubordinates and must be able to coach, train andcounsel subordinates in job responsibilities.

ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS

Planning and Organizing: Establishing a course of actionfor self and/or others to accomplish a specific goal;planning proper assignments of personnel and appropriateallocation of resources.

(The position of second lieutenanc requires individualswho can plan and organize for themselves and others.Most second lieutenants prepare task assignments formembers of their units according to importance andurgency. They must assign tasks to NCOs or othermembers of their units, as appropriate, and reschedulepriorities and assignments due to unforeseen problems.They must take actions to meet suspense for reports orother needs of the organization. They must managetheir own time to make effective use of time availableand allocate resources necessary for the accomplishmentof assigned unit tasks.)

-59-


Importance

Delegation: Utilizing subordinates effectively.Allocating decision making ý d other responsibilitiesto the appropriate subordin ?s.

(Most second lieutenant positions require individualswho can effectively allocate work to theirsubordinates. There are many facets to the delegationdimension. It includes what is delegated(responsibility, authority, or information gathering);how it is delegated (clarity and specificity of thedelegation); and the target of the delegation (is ittoe most appropriate person). All of these factors areimportant and must be considered in evaluating theeffectiveness of the delegations of an individual.Second lieutenants must frequently prepare preciseinstructions and assignments of specific tasks tosubordinates.)

Management Control: Establishing procedures to monitorand/or regulate processes, tasks or activities ofsubordinates and job activities and responsibilities.Taking action to monitor the results of delegatedassignments or projects.

(Secund lieutenants must see the need for and takeaction to establish controls over procedures or methodsfor the accomplishment of unit work tasks andactivities. The most frequent monitoring deviceemployed by second lieutenants is direct observation.However, provisions for feedback such as weekly reportsor daily meetings with NCOs are also of significantvalue or usefulness. Second lieutenants must follow upon directions given to subordinates to ensure that theyare followed correctly. They must monitor theprogress, activities and achievements of their units ascompared to the timetables of assigned objectives.They must check to make sure that delegated assignmentsare completed within the time frame established.)

-60-


DECISION MAKING SKILLS

Importance

Problem Analysis: Identifying problems, securing relevantinformation, relating data from different sources andidentifying possible causes of problems.

(Second lieutenants are faced with a myriad of problemsat unit level which they must have the skill to solve.They must be able to correctly identify existingsurface as well as underlying problems. Secondly, theymust possess the skill and knowledge to recognize andcollect pertinent information critical to the problem.Third, they must possess the skill to accuratelyanalyze the information relative to the problem.Finally, they must be able to correctly identify thecause of the problem and possibly potential problemsthat could occur if the immediate problem is notsolved. Examples of such problems are decreasing unitmorale, failure to achieve unit training goals,increasing crime rate within the unit, etc.)

Judgment: Developing alternative courses of action andmaking decisions which are based on logical assumptionsand which reflect factual information.

(Second lieutenants are required to make decisions on adaily basis in many different areas of activity.Judgment reflects the degree to which people use theinformation they are given or have obtained, developalternative possiblities, perceive the appropriatenessof the actions open to them, understand the pros andcons of each alternative, and choose the mostappropriate alternative. For example, secondlieutenants must know when to discipline, who todiscipline, when to believe their NCOs, etc.)

Decisiveness: Readiness to make decisions, renderjudgments, take action, or commit oneself.

(Second lieutenants are required to make many decisionsduring the course of fu!lfiling their jobresponsibilities. They need to De able to determinehow many facts are necessary in a given situation inorder to make a decision. The position requiresindividuals who will make a decision, given sufficientinformation, and not needlessly seek or wait forfurther information.)

-61-


TECHNICAL SKILLS

Importance

Technical Competency: Level of understanding and abilityto use technical/professional information.

Second lieutenants must display effective technical andtactical competence by appropriately utilizing mapreading skills. They must maintain knowledge of Armyregulations, equipment and weapon maintenance and use.They must apply job knowledge appropriately to tacticaland/or technical decisions.

-62-

APPENDIX D. ASSESSEE FINAL REPORT FORMAT

LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

FINAL REPORT

I. Participant Information

A. Name of Participant:(last) (first) (initial)

B. Social Security Number:

C. Program/College Attending:_

D. Assessment Group Color: Participant Number:

IH. Overall Evaluation

You are asked to provide two general ratings below. On item t, you shouldrate the participant on how well you think his/her performance? in theLeadership Assessment Program would compare to that of a recentlycommissioned second lieutenant. On item B, you should make a judgment orthe participant's potential to become an effective junior officer oncehe/she has completed precommissioning and officer basic course training.

A. Leadership Assessment Program Performance Rating

( ) Performed above the level of most new second lieutenants.Performed at the level of most new second lieutenants.

( ) Performed acceptably, but not quite at the level of new secondlieutenants.

Performed considerably below the level of new second lieutenants.

B. Officer Potential Rating

OutstandingAbove Average

) Average) Below Average

Poor

III. Dimension Ratings

Written Communication Skill Delegation

Initiative Administrative Control

Social Awareness Problem Analysis

Planning and Organizing Judgment

Decisiveness Oral Communication Skill

Oral Presentattion Skill Leadership

-63-

IV. Summary of Demonstrated Major Strengths (Document with behaviors.)

V. Summary of Demonstrated Major Weaknesses (Document with behaviors.)

VI. Recommended Developmental Actions

Report Prepared by: Date: / /

Assessors: 1) 2) 3),,(print name) (print name) (print name)

Tsignature) (signature) (signature)

-64-

APPENDIX E. ASSESSEE REACTIONS FIRST FIELD TEST

ROTC Student Reactionslst Field Test

Response % # of Students

Attitudes Toward Program Prior to Participation

- Greatly Looked Forward to Going 16.7 (3)- Looked Forward to Going 50.0 (9)- Did Not Care 16.7 (3)- Somewhat Reluctant 16.7 (3)- Very Reluctant to Go

Reactions to Program After Participation

- Very Good 55.0 (10)- Good 45.0 (8)- Poor- Very Poor

Effectiveness of Assessment Staff

- Good Job 100.0 (18)- Moderate Job- Poor Job

ROTC Student Ratings of Exercise Interest

Very VeryGood Good Average Poor Poor

- In-Basket 38.9 (7) 33.3 (6) 27.7 (5) .. ..- Scheduling Fxercise 22.2 (4) 44.4 (8) 33.3 (6) .. ..- Oral Presentation 22.2 (4) 22.2 (4) 44.4 (8)11.1(2- Counseling Simulation 44.4 (8) 33.3 (6) 16.6 (3) 5.5(1- Group Discussion 55.5 (10) 27.7 (5) 16.6 (3) --

-65-

I

APPENDIX F. ASSESSOR REACTIONS FIRST FIELD TEST

ROTC Instructor ReactionsIst Field Test

# ofResponse % l-truztors

Attitudes Toward Program Prior to Participation

- Greatly Looked Forward to Going 12.5 (1)- Looked Forward to Going 50.0 (4)- Did Not Care 12.5 (1)- Somewhat Reluctant to Go 25.0 (2)- Very Reluctant to Go

Value of Program After Participation

- Extremely Valuable 87.5 (7)SValuable 12.5 (1)- Not Particularly Valuable- Waste of Time

Assessor Training Program Effectiveness

- Very Effective 50.0 (4)- Effective 37.5 (3)- Satisfactory 12.5 (1)- Ineffective- Very Ineffective

Length of Assessor Training

- Too Long --- Just About Right 62.5 (5)- Too Short 36.5 (3)

Leadership Diensions Portrayal of Junior Officer Job

- Very Accurate 75.0 (5)- Accurate 25.0 (3)- Somewhat Inaccurate- Very Inaccurate

Confidence in Judgments of Cadets

- Extr2mely Confident 37.5 (3)- Confident 62.5 (5)- Only Somewhat Confident- Not at all Confident

-

-67- L)

ROTC instructor ReactionsIst Field Test (Continued)

Value of Assessor Training

Very VeryGood Good Average Poor Poor

- Evaluating Performance ofCadets/Officer Candidates 100.0 (8)

- Evaluating Performance of Sub-ordinates in Future Assignments 62.5 (5) 37.5 (3)

- Counseling Subordinates/Students

on Job/School Related Matters 100.0 (8)

Value of Assessment Program for ROTC Instructors

- Surfacing the Cadet'sDevelopmental Needs 100.0 (8)

- Selecting Cadets intoROTC Program 12.5 (1) 62.5 (5) 25.0 (2)

- Giving Cadets Realistic Views

of Junior Officer Job 62.5 (5) 25.0 (2) 12.5 (1)

- Serving as Leadership Training 75.0 (6) 12.5 (1) 12.5 (1)

-68-

APPENDIX G. OCS ASSESSEE REACTIONS SECOND FIELD TEST

OCS Candidate Reactions2nd Field Test

# of

Response % Students

Overall Reaction to Leadership Assessment Program

- Very Good 60.0 (6)- Good 40.0 (4)- Poor- Very Poor

Recommend Program to Fellow Candidate

- Highly Recommend 85.7 (6)- Recommend 14.3 (1)- Recommend with Reservations- Not Recommend

Evaluation of Performance in Program

- Very Accurate 71.5 (5)- Reasonably Accurate 28.5 (2)- Inaccurate in Many Respects- Totally Inaccurate

-69-

APPENDIX H. OCS ASSESSOR REACTIONS SECOND FIELD TEST

OCS Instructor Reactions2nd Field Test

# ofResponse % Instructors

Value of Leadership Assessment Program

- Extemely Valuable 100.0 (5)- Valuable --- Not Particularly Valuable- Complete Waste of Time --

Value of Student Feedback Session

- Very Valuable 100.0 (5)- Valuable --- Not Very Valuable- Not at all Valuable --

Effectiveness of Assessor Training Program

- Very Effective 60.0 (3)- Effective 40.0 (2)- Satisfactory --- Ineffective- Very Effective

i 2MU PAGE BLAlK-NOT FILX

-71- 070783

Documents

Technical Report 560 - Defense Technical Information Center · REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM I. REPORT NUMBER t2 GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S